The central legal point established is the interpretation and application of Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019, regarding the release of seized vehicles involved in accidents, and the imposition of specific terms and conditions for such release.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent the matter has been heard on merit.

3. Petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing of order dated 07.08.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 38/2021 by which the order dated 25.03.2021 passed in Nawadih P.S.Case No.20 of 2021, corresponding to G.R.Case No.245 of 2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat whereby the petitioner’s application for release of vehicle bearing registration No.JH09K-6978 and Trolly bearing registration No.JH09K-6979 has been rejected, was confirmed.

4. Mr. Randhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Sukhdeo Karamkar has lodged the First Information Report alleging therein that on 12.02.2021 the son of the informant namely Srikant Karamkar aged about 21 years had gone to the house of the informant’s sister at Village Bandio by his motorcycle bearing registration No.JH01CA-5028 and at about 05.00 p.m in the evening the son of the informant had gone to village Mungo, Galodih from village Bandio with one Pradeep Karamkar. It is further alleged that during course of returning when the son of the informant reached at Village Mungo near Masjid at that time a tractor bearing registration no.JH09K-6978 was coming from opposite side with rash and negligence and the driver of the tractor dash the motorcycle due to which the son of the informant and one Pradeep Kumar have got injuries. Thereafter the injured persons have taken to hospital by the villagers but on the way the informant’s son died and Pradeep Karamkar has taken to BGH Hospital for treatment.

5. Mr. Randhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner filed an application for release of his vehicle before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat for release of the vehicle bearing registration no.registration No.JH09K-6978 and Trolly bearing registration No.JH09K-6979 which was dismissed by order dated 25.03.2021. He submits that the petitioner is legally owner of the seized tractor and the insurance of the said vehicle was renewed on 16.02.2021 by the petitioner just after the alleged occurrence. He submits that since the insurance was not there and considering Rule-6 of Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 the vehicle has not been released.

6. Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 speaks that the vehicle can be released if the owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. He submits that Rule 6 of the said Rule has not been considered properly by the trial court as well as by the revisional court. He submits that since the vehicle in question is commercial one and lying in open field, no purpose will serve in keeping the vehicle deteriorated.

7. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the revisional order has rightly been passed.

8. For the correct appreciation of the case, Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 is quoted here-in-below:

6.(1). No Court shall release a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death of bodily injury or damage to property, when such vehicle is not covered by the policy of insurance against third party risks taken in the name of registered owner or when the registered owner fails to furnish copy of such i